"Republicans trying not to put their foot in their mouth" challenge (impossible)

If someone's legacy consists of repeatedly causing harm to others and never showing any signs of being repentant about any of it, then I see no reason not to be glad they can no longer do so.

Or just another Shen Bapiro. Sorry, I mean Bendover Shartiro.

I mean... Fuck it, you get it.

They wanted lies and deception; I say give the people what they want.

The problem starts when people's widespread incorrectness poses an actual existential threat to humanity in the long run. Then, we can't afford not to try to convince them, no matter how vain the hope of succeeding.

See: vaccines, climate change, guns, healthcare. People's stances on these are literally resulting in avoidable deaths. Thus, I will never stop trying to reach people. Call me an optimist, but I have to believe it's worth it.

It's basically ignoring the meanings of words so they can control discourse, and thus people's very thoughts.

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

― George Orwell, 1984

The scary part is, it works. We really are nothing more than dumb animals that learned how to talk and build things.

So, from what I gather, the Hatch Act involves certain types of government official being nonpartisan by necessity, which sounds good to me.

But what happens when the act of following certain laws becomes partisan in itself (for example, not resorting to vote manipulation)? Most often, you find more corruption in right-wing circles than in left-wing ones. It makes it difficult to act in a manner that is both legal and nonpartisan when the values and actions of the right have become criminal.

To me, this looks like an attempt by the right to get someone out of power just because they don't like her, and it speaks more to their criminality than it does to her non-partisanship or lack thereof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Defense

>Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair. In international relations, behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be quite good for a given geopolitical neighborhood, and deserves to be recognized as such.

>Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of the tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy.

Fair enough, that makes sense.

Oh, heh. Well, now I feel silly.

"Pray I entreat you to answer me" does seem unnecessary. Why ask a question otherwise?

And before anyone mentions rhetorical questions - like my own above - I think those are generally implicitly understood to be rhetorical based on context. I doubt people didn't understand that concept back then, so I do wonder why they would say that, specifically.